Yeah, cause somebody cares about you "threatening" to move to Canada.

Ya, know... your argument -- and ones similar to it used throughout history -- only make me sigh and shake my head now. If you cannot see the difference between an organization or government that is using violence and fear to force their beliefs on others, and the world's attempt to stop that, then I feel sorry for you. Your moral compass has become demagnetized.

Showing these murders serves as a gut punch to the free world. It enables us to have a visceral reaction to this brutality, forcing us to acknowledge and deal with the fact that there are people in this world who are willing to use any means to achieve their end attempt to force their beliefs on others through fear and control them through the same. Unfortunately, I don't think enough it makes the evening news or online news feeds. Like the press coverage of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, somehow the modern press has developed its own misguided ethos over what the American public should or shouldn't see. Should there be a sufficient warning so that children or those who don't want to see it can choose not to? Yes. But, that's all that's needed. Fair warning.

Ultimately, it's not the press's responsibility to censor violent video. It's their responsibility to show it. It's their responsibility to objectively report the news.

There are those who will argue that Fox was doing ISIS's PR work for them. That's bunk. Has not showing the carnage that Boko Haram has inflicted on the people of Nigeria stopped them for doing it? In fact, when terrorists killed a handful of people in Paris, it was plastered all over the news for weeks. We all saw the wounded police officer shot in the head. Yet, long before that, tens of thousands of people were murdered, entire towns leveled and atrocities beyond even that were committed by Boko Haram -- yet that has received and still receives a tiny portion of the news coverage that the Paris attacks had. That's the greatest disservice of all by the press.

Showing these murders serves as a gut punch to the free world. It enables us to have a visceral reaction to this brutality, forcing us to accept and deal with the fact that there are people in this world who are willing to go to any ends in their attempt to force their beliefs on others through fear and control them through the same acts of violence. Unfortunately, I don't think enough it makes the evening news or online news feeds. Like the press coverage of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, somehow the modern press has developed its own misguided ethos over what the American public should or shouldn't see. Should there be a sufficient warning so that children or those who don't want to see it can choose not to? Yes. But, that's all that's needed. Fair warning.

Ultimately, it's not the press's responsibility to censor violent video. It's their responsibility to show it. It's their responsibility to objectively report the news.

There are those who will argue that Fox was doing ISIS's PR work for them. That's bunk. Has not showing the carnage that Boko Haram has inflicted on the people of Nigeria stopped them for doing it? In fact, when terrorists killed a handful of people in Paris, it was plastered all over the news for weeks. We all saw the wounded police officer shot in the head. Yet, long before that, tens of thousands of people were murdered, entire towns leveled and atrocities beyond even that were committed by Boko Haram -- yet it received and still receives a tiny portion of the news coverage that the Paris attacks had. That's the greatest disservice of all by the press.

Dude, you're talking about eyepieces that cost $340+ each. I'm an amateur and I'm not shelling out hundreds of dollars for just an eyepiece.

For three years, I've been using a reflector telescope with 4.5" diameter mirror lens. It's not a cheap telescope, but as far as viewing planets, it's a bit like looking at a grain of rice. You get the general shape (with Saturn you can see rings clearly), but you don't get any great detail. So when I see sentences like "Stargazers are in for a treat..." I can't help but think this only applies to people who've either spent thousands on astrological equipment -- or perhaps just people who like looking at NASA's image pages.